Objective Morality Scares me!!

[Mr.Badham]

The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.

Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?

[bluethread]

The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.

Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?

First you present a subjective morality based on feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent. You then present consent as the determinant factor in rape, murder and slavery. You then say that a lack of empathy and an intent to do harm must also be present. The problem then becomes what constitutes consent. One can not really evaluate the parameters without this being clearly defined.

To answer the question posed. Malpractice is such a case. The person may have empathy, consent and no intent to do harm, but is merely negligent. It is immoral to fail to show due diligence.

[Goat]

The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.

Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?

It is not objective moraltiy that scares me. Objective morality would be be. However, there is no way to show there is objective morality.

What scares me are the PEOPLE who claim there is objective morality, and that their morals are objective.

[wiploc]

The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality...

Generally, "objective" is a hedge word, an equivocation. So there's no way to know what "objective morality" is until you've extracted a meaning from the individual person who used the word. And then you have to stay on your toes so as to notice when she tries to surreptitiously change the definition.

I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is.

Generally there are two tests of objectivity (call them the flunk test and the pass test). According to the pass test, almost any morality would be objective. According to the flunk test, no morality is objective.

The art of making the moral argument for god's existence is essentially the art of secretly switching between these two tests. You use the pass test to show that god-based morality is objective, and then you use the flunk test to show that other morality is not objective. If you can keep people from noticing that you switched test, your argument will seem strangely plausible.

So I don't see how you can say that nobody knows what objective morality is. According to the pass test, utilitarianism is as objective as anything.

Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral

For any one definition of "objective," anyone can say what is objectively moral.

could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.

What would gods have to do with it?

Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?

I'm a sort of a rule utilitarian, so that seems to me a description of act utilitarians.

[Cephus]

There just is no reason to think that morality is at all objective, none of the evidence supports that and it seems, at least from my perspective, that the religious only demand objective morality because they don't want to argue what is moral over and over, they just want to declare it to be so.

[bluethread]

There just is no reason to think that morality is at all objective, none of the evidence supports that and it seems, at least from my perspective, that the religious only demand objective morality because they don't want to argue what is moral over and over, they just want to declare it to be so.

That is because the religious have routine patterns of living. Once something becomes a routine, it soon becomes a standard and there can be no truly subjective standards. Once one applies a standard, any standard, to another one an argument is being made for objectivity. If this were not the case, the other could merely refuse to recognize the standard and there would be no recourse. So, even if one holds, philosophically, that there are no objective standards, one must act as if there are when establishing social or moral standards.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 3 by Goat]

I agree 100%. The other thing that scares me are people who are willing to accept what someone else claims to be objective morality. I always hear the argument that because Hitler was an atheist, his morals are atheist morals. I can't help but think that if Hitler had found no followers he would have ended up nothing more than a crazy person on a street corner shouting anti Semetic slogans at passers by.
It seems people are begging someone to tell them what to think and how to act.

[Cephus]

There just is no reason to think that morality is at all objective, none of the evidence supports that and it seems, at least from my perspective, that the religious only demand objective morality because they don't want to argue what is moral over and over, they just want to declare it to be so.

That is because the religious have routine patterns of living. Once something becomes a routine, it soon becomes a standard and there can be no truly subjective standards. Once one applies a standard, any standard, to another one an argument is being made for objectivity. If this were not the case, the other could merely refuse to recognize the standard and there would be no recourse. So, even if one holds, philosophically, that there are no objective standards, one must act as if there are when establishing social or moral standards.

Sure there are. There are more than 3000 distinct sects of Christianity and across those, there are plenty of moral dictates that are not shared among them. However, even if all of them shared every moral precept, that doesn't make them objective, it just makes them common. There is a difference between believing that something is objectively morally true and recognizing it as subjectively useful. Virtually all morals held commonly in modern society are useful but not demonstrably universally true.

[Overcomer]

Let's define our terms. In philosophy, "objective" refers to something outside the human mind. This means that it cannot change according to mood, feelings, prejudices, desires, etc. It simply exists. As such, objective moral values are not invented, but discovered, not individual, but universal, not changeable, but always true or absolute.

On the other hand, we have subjective moral values which change from culture to culture and person to person. This makes morality relative. Ideas of right and wrong come and go to suit people. As philosopher Ron Nash puts it, we make decisions based on the strongest desire of the moment. It has little to do with reason and a lot to do with emotion which means that ideas of right and wrong often have little bearing at all. We will make pursuing what we want "right" and "good" even if it isn't.

Christians assert that objective, universal, absolute moral standards exist in the person of God. He is immutable. Therefore, standards of morality are immutable. They aren't based on the whims of human beings who, being born with sin natures, have a warped idea of right and wrong.

I understand that atheists HAVE to deny the very idea of moral objectivity because they cannot and will not entertain the idea of God. They don't want God to be real because they don't want to have to answer to him. They want to be their own gods. That's why they like the idea of moral relativism.

However, moral relativism and moral subjectivity are not feasible. If one truly believes that morality is relative and individual, changeable and not absolute, that means that one HAS to accept anything that anybody else thinks, says or does. Because if you take the idea of moral relativism to its logical conclusion, you remove your right to criticize anybody. You have to keep your mouth shut and ignore the evil around you.

The reality is that NOBODY actually lives as a moral relativist. Even the people who insist that they do not believe in objective, universal, absolute standards actually do in practice.

For example, ask yourselves this question: Is it ever morally right to torture and rape three-year-old children in any culture in any time period in history? Can it ever be justified as ethically correct? If you say that it is never right to practise child abuse, then you believe in an objective, universal, absolute moral standard even if you say you don't.

If you say it is acceptable to rape and torture small children, then please let me know where you live because I want to stay away from you completely. You are not somebody I would want to know personally. Even if you yourself wouldn't commit that heinous act, if you're a relativist, you have to accept that somebody else finds that all right and that means you would do nothing to protect my children from such monsters.

Let me make it personal. Would you allow somebody to sexually abuse YOUR three-year-old? Would you allow somebody to torture and rape YOU? Would it ever be right for people to do those things to you and your child? If you say no, that it would never be right, then you are defending objective moral absolutism, which, by definition, HAS to exist outside of yourself and all of humanity.

Someone mentioned Hitler earlier in this thread. If you are a moral relativist, then you have no right to criticize him for what he did. He did what he thought was best for Germany and that meant getting rid of Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc. If you say that we can count on the majority to get things right, then that provides another reason why you can't criticize Hitler because he had the majority on his side.

And if you believe that we are all products of mindless, purposeless, random chance, how can you say that one accident of nature's idea of right and wrong is better than that of another accident of nature? If Richard Dawkins is right and we are all just dancing to our DNA and can do nothing about it, how are we to blame Hitler for doing just what he was programmed to do? How can we complain about the child molester who is merely doing what his DNA dictates?

Either we have objective, universal moral absolutes that exist outside of humanity in the person of God or we have subjective, relative, changeable ideas about right and wrong that arise out of a person's will and desire, often based on selfishness and self-satisfaction, all arising from a sin nature.

As Dostoevsky said, without God, everything is permissible. That's what you're saying when you say you reject objective moral absolutes. You're saying that anything goes.

Check these out:



http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/boom-ravi ... elativism/

As for the idea that God condoned slavery, consider this:

Slavery as presented in the Old Testament is NOT the kind of slavery you would find in the American South prior to the Civil War. Basically, it was a kind of indentured servanthood.

For example, if you owed money and could not pay the person to whom you owed it, you went to work for him until you worked off your debt. People entered into these agreements of their own accord. They were NOT bought and sold. And every seven years, all slaves were released from the agreement whether they had paid off their debts or not. And the man they worked for had to give them property so that they could start afresh. Some men chose to remain in the employ of their "masters" because it was a good life and they had no desire to be out on their own. And that was THEIR choice.

In the result of war, foreign women and children would also become servants because there was no way for them to survive own their on in that culture. Remember that we are not talking about a state where social welfare existed or where women were educated and able to look after themselves economically.

And note that God introduced all kinds of rules to protect people in these situations, not because he condoned slavery, but because men would introduce it into society. If you were to compare slavery in other Ancient Near Eastern countries, you would see how different and how much more lenient the institution was amongst the Israelites.

Look at it this way: Our governments introduce laws re: murder, theft, traffic violations, etc., not because they condone those things, but because they know people will commit them. Therefore, they try to regulate things so that chaos will not ensue. That's how it was with God and the Israelites. God gives people free will and knows how they will mess up. He issued commands to the Israelites in response to the way they lived to keep society from degenerating into chaos.

In New Testament times, it was the Romans who introduced and upheld slavery, not the Jews. Being a subjugated race, there wasn't a lot the Jews could do about it. But blame it on the Romans, not on the Jews and not on God. Men have to take responsibility for their own evil.

With regard to God and so-called genocide, consider this: God was to implement his plan of salvation for humanity through the nation of Israel. The Israelites kept following their pagan neighbours in worshipping their idols, sacrificing their children to them, etc. If God lost Israel, God would lose all of humanity. He had to protect Israel. He warned the pagans that they must change or he would act. They didn't change. He acted. It's like telling a terrorist that if he stops his murderous ways, you'll welcome him, if he doesn't, you'll have to act and stop him.

Since the plan of salvation was fulfilled in Christ, the need to protect the Jews no longer existed. Therefore, the Old Covenant was replaced with the New which tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves and even love our enemies.

And when it gets right down to it, if anyone truly thinks morality is subjective and relative, then who is he to criticize God for doing what he did? With no moral absolute about such things, no one has the right to say God did anything wrong.

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Replying to post 9 by Overcomer]

Christians assert that objective, universal, absolute moral standards exist in the person of God. He is immutable. Therefore, standards of morality are immutable. They aren't based on the whims of human beings who, being born with sin natures, have a warped idea of right and wrong.

This runs directly into Euthyphro's Dilema. Is God good because he measures up an external standard of what good is, or is Good simply what God decrees it to be?

And if good is whatever God says it is, then how is morality different than obedience to God? Is morality the same thing as authoritarianism? Are you living with a might makes right philosophy?

I understand that atheists HAVE to deny the very idea of moral objectivity because they cannot and will not entertain the idea of God.

That does not compute. Why do you make this claim? What foundation do you have for it? Why is God saying something is "good" or "bad" any less subjective than me or you doing so?

If we search the moral teachings and values of all cultures, and find something universally considered good or bad, you would have a universal morality. I think that is the closes you will ever come to objective morality.

If one truly believes that morality is relative and individual, changeable and not absolute, that means that one HAS to accept anything that anybody else thinks, says or does. Because if you take the idea of moral relativism to its logical conclusion, you remove your right to criticize anybody. You have to keep your mouth shut and ignore the evil around you.

This also does not compute. Why would I stop acting in the interests of what I consider right and wrong just because you see things differently? Just because we disagree on what is right doesn't mean I won't judge you by my sense of what is right.